User:Seregain

I'm not really here. You're imagining things.
(This space intentionally left blank.)

The definition of irony
This article was kept despite extremely weak sources that are not widely known and NO MAINSTREAM SOURCES while this article was deleted despite much better sources including those in several mainstream sources.

This is me
In the spirit of openness and honesty, these handful of edits are mine: Special:Contributions/72.55.202.157

I took a break from Wikipedia after December 13th (as is evidenced here if you scroll down) and when I returned, I failed to notice that I was not logged in. When I realized my mistake, I made sure to log in and admit to it. I had no intent of sockpuppeting or hiding my identity.

Useful advice
I just found this and I'm taking it to heart. I deeply apologize for any and all uncivil behavior on my part and I will strive to avoid such behavior in the future.

WP:NOSPADE At this point, many of us will be tempted to declare that our opponent is clearly a "POV pusher" or a "vandal" or "has a conflict of interest" or "is trolling". This public accusation is sometimes referred to as "calling a spade a spade", but such name-calling or labeling can be uncivil and can even cross the line into a personal attack.

There are some very good reasons not to do this. In short, editors are unlikely to listen to anything further that you say once the dispute escalates that far, and if you later turn out to be wrong, it'll be embarrassing.

...

Don't edit war. When there are only two people, or two opposing groups of about the same size, it never helps, and just makes both sides look bad. Hold back a bit, talk on the talk page, and, if possible, perhaps try out new, bold attempts at compromise. If all else fails, and the edit is genuinely bad, but the other editor insists it's good, sit back, and wait to see if other editors revert him instead – having a lot of editors object to a suggestion that only one user is promoting is a better sign of consensus against that editor's edit than two editors edit warring for their version (though remember: Don't canvass). Talk on the talk page in the meantime, explaining why the version that you oppose is wrong, and cite sources or policy as appropriate.

Once consensus is clearly against an edit, and more eyes are on things, then most reasonable editors will accept the change – and if not, and they keep warring for it, then you have plenty of evidence to go to dispute resolution with, and can now prove the spade is, indeed, a spade.

And if consensus went against you? Accept it and move on. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and editorial disputes are inevitable. You will not always get the exact version you prefer.

...

Note that it is a bad idea to publicly identify the opponent as a troll, or a vandal, or a POV warrior, or a history revisionist, or a censor, or a member of a cabal, or a "dick", or a fool. The user is probably at least two or three of those things, but it's to your advantage never to bring it up. Once you've made an ad hominem assertion of any kind, it opens the gate to an endless stream of them, you've given up your position on the moral high ground, and the dispute has escalated to a new level. If the other editor gets personal, politely point out that they're getting personal, but don't respond in kind. Continue to re-focus the discussion on edits, and not on individuals.

Be warned, however: this restraint requires patience and fortitude on your part. If the conflict continues with the same user or group of users for weeks or months, you may become frustrated. If it's getting you down, contact an administrator, begin dispute resolution (if you haven't already), and don't be afraid to politely and concisely explain the problem, backing your claims with the evidence from your lengthy interaction. Civility does not imply concession – you can seek help without resorting to insults or ad hominems.

The most powerful arguments are those that are made for purely project-related reasons, with no reference to any other agenda, whether it be moral, ethical, political or emotional. Discuss the content, not the contributor; comment on the edit, not the editor.

My apology
I just want to take a moment to apologize to everyone who got sucked in to - however remotely - the recent mess for which I was partially to blame. I never should've gotten involved in any level of conflict with another user. As a human being, I have strong opinions and can be impatient, but that's no excuse because I also have a brain. I initially attempted to resolve the conflict amicably and when things started to get heated, I backed off. However, when I came back, I thoroughly failed to back off again when things almost immediately became heated and I only contributed to the escalation. I felt what I was doing was best, but what I should've done is think about what was best. As a result, it was made clear to me by at least one other person how close I came to being measurably disciplined for my actions. I will endeavor to never get to that point again and to keep this page exemplary. Seregain (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The definition of unmitigated gall and rank hypocrisy
Accusing someone else of being a sockpuppet based on an extremely weak rationale while engaging in sockpuppetry of your own.